Ticzon v.

Media Post
Doctrine: A preliminary injunction issued in an action to enforce a contract, which prohibits an employee
from working in a competing enterprise within two years from resignation, has the same lifetime as the
prohibitiontwo years also. Therefore, upon the expiration of the said period, a suit questioning the
validity of the issuance of the writ becomes functus oficio and therefore moot. Courts are called upon to
resolve actual cases and controversies, not to render advisory opinions. They cannot take cognizance of
moot and academic questions, subject to notable exceptions involving constitutional issues.
Facts:
1.

2.

3.

Respondent Video Post Manila, Inc. purchased a computerized editing equipment referred to as
Henry, which was to be used for editing and postproduction. Petitioners Michael Thomas S.
Plana and Paul Hendrik P. Ticzon were hired by the respondent as video editor and computer
graphics artist, respectively. Both of them signed an employment contract with a common clause4
prohibiting them, within two years from the termination of their employment, from working in a
business firm or corporation that was engaged in a similar business or that might compete with
respondent corporation.
Petitioners Ticzon and Plana resigned. The two subsequently applied for employment with
Petitioner Omni Post, which eventually hired them. Respondent instituted a Complaint for
Damages alleging that Plana and Ticzon had committed a breach of their contract, particularly
Clause 5 thereof, when they sought employment with Omni Post
a. Clause 5 of these employment contracts states that: You are absolutely prohibited,
during your employment with the Company and for a period of two (2) years thereafter,
from being employed or engaged in any other capacity or undertaking and shall NOT be
interested or concerned, directly or indirectly in any business firm or corporation
undertaking or carrying on any business of a similar nature, or which may compete with
that of the Company.
Respondent Video Post filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin petitioners from working with Omni Post as video editors.
RTC granted the TRO and issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Issue: Whether the issue of the validity of the preliminary injunction is moot and academic YES.
Ratio:
It has been held that a contract that is limited to time and trade is considered reasonable and, therefore,
valid and enforceable. A contract, however, which restraints a man from entering into a business or trade
without either a limitation as to time or place, will be held invalid.A contract may be limited in duration
but not as to trade, rendering it unenforceable just the same for being unreasonable. In view of the
foregoing, the Court is of the opinion and so holds that the employment contract involved in the present
case is reasonable and, therefore, valid.
The trial court, in upholding the validity of Clause 5, explained: Based on the evidence presented in support
of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the plaintiff appears to have made substantial
investments not only on capital equipment for use in its business, but also on technical information and
trade secrets to which the defendants have been exposed during their employment with the plaintiff.
Viewed in this context, and subject to the defenses which the defendants may prove during the trial, the
Court, for purposes of the resolution of the application for preliminary injunction, is of the opinion and so
holds that Clause 5 of the employment contracts of defendants Ticzon and Plana with the plaintiff is
reasonably necessary to protect the investments of the plaintiff. It is settled that the evidence to be
submitted during the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or
complete, the evidence needed being only a sampling and intended to give the court an idea of the
justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision o[n] the case [based] on the merits. The
plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in its application for a writ of
preliminary injunction

A contempt case was also filed by Respondent Video Post against petitioners for violating the preliminary
injunction as they continued to work for Omni Post despite the issuance of the writ. Petitioners challenged
the RTC Orders in their Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. Denying the
Petition before it, the CA declared that the questions raised were rendered moot by the expiration of the
period; Hence, this Petition
Whether the issue of the validity of the preliminary injunction is moot and academic: Petition has no merit
Indeed, there was no longer any purpose in determining whether the trial courts issuance of the Writ
amounted to grave abuse of discretion. The period within which the petitioners were prohibited from
engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with the respondentthe very purpose of the
preliminary injunctionhad expired. Hence, any declaration upholding the propriety of the Writ would
have been entirely useless. Having outlived its purpose, it had already become functus oficio. The
prohibition and, necessarily, the Writ were effective only for two years. This period began in November
1995 and ended November 1997. Similarly, even if we say that the injunction was invalid, it would be in
vain, as petitioners are now free to seek employment wherever they want to, the two-year prohibition
period having already lapsed. Therefore, we hold that there is21no actual case or controversy between the
parties insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned. Indeed, courts should not take cognizance of
moot and academic questions, subject to notable exceptions involving constitutional issues.
On the argument of petitioners that the contempt case against them precludes the mootness of this case,
suffice it to say that such contempt case may proceed independently of our ruling here. There is no finding
on the validity of the Writ; therefore, the court a quo hearing the contempt case may make its own
determination. That is a function more suitably exercised by the trial court rather than by this Court.
Unquestionably, the contempt case has not even reached this Court.
Damages
Philippine National Bank v. CA: In the instant case, aside from the principal action for damages, private
respondent sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
the foreclosure sale in order to prevent an alleged irreparable injury to private respondent. It is settled that
these injunctive reliefs are preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests.
Injunction is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.
When the act sought to be enjoined ha[s] become fait accompli, only the prayer for provisional remedy
should be denied. However, the trial court should still proceed with the determination of the principal
action so that an adjudication of the rights of the parties can be had. In a similar vein, the main case here is
not moot at all. The main issue of damages being sought by the respondent against petitioners should be
taken up during the trial on the merits when the allegations of the parties may properly be addressed. A
remand of this case for that purpose is necessary.
We find no basis for petitioners claim that the CA prejudged the entire case when it applied Del Castillo v.
Richmond. As far as it was concerned, the case was already moot. It referred to Del Castillo only to affirm
the trial courts preliminary finding that Clause 5 was valid and could thus be the basis for the issuance of
the Writ.
In the same vein, we find no prejudgment on the part of the trial court. What is abundantly clear is the
provisional nature of its finding on the validity of Clause 5 which, it clarified, was for purposes of the
resolution of the application for preliminary injunction. Moreover, even if that proviso in the employment
contracts is found to be valid, the case is not yet resolved, since Respondent Video Post must prove the
following with sufficient evidence: the violation of such clause by petitioners, the fact that it suffered
damages due to the petitioners acts, and the amount of such damages. Therefore, the declaration of the
validity of Clause 5 does not dispose of the entire case. Several factual matters must be still addressed.
Unfortunately, petitioners jumped the gun. They chose to question the interlocutory orders of the trial court
and prematurely tried to appeal the entire case. In the interest of due process, we cannot allow them to
short-circuit court processes.

In injunctive matters, even the cases cited by petitioners recognize the principle allowing lower courts
judicial discretion, the exercise of which should hot be interfered with except where there is manifest
abuse. There is no reason to disturb such exercise here.